[ The rumor that the FCC has before it a proposal to
not issue licenses to religious broadcasters still continues to circulate, more than
30 years after the Commission denied that request. The FCC's policy toward
religious broadcasters remains unchanged in that no special provisions or
restrictions are applied to religious stations or licensees, nor are any changes
to that policy contemplated. ]

Revision of the Rules Permitting Multiple
Ownership of Non-Commercial
Educational
Radio and Television Stations in
Single Markets; and
Request for "Freeze" on All Applications
By Government Owned and
Controlled
Groups for Reserved Educational FM
RM-2493
and TV Channels; and
Request for "Freeze" on All Applications
by Religious "Bible", Christian, and
Other Sectarian Schools, Colleges, and
Institutes for Reserved Educational FM
and TV Channels

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Adopted: August 1, 1975
Released: August 13, 1975

By the Commission: Commissioner Robinson Issuing a Separate Statement In Which
Commissioner Hooks Joins.

1. The Commission has before it the above-captioned petition filed by Lorenzo
Milam and Jeremy Lansman and the filings in response to it. As described below, the petition
seeks a series of changes in the rules relating to the standards applicable to the licensing and
and operation of educational stations on reserved FM or television channels. In
particular, the petitioners seek the commencement of an inquiry leading toward changes
in the rules to place certain limitations on which educational organizations might
be considered eligible to hold station authorizations.

2. Although the number of filings in response to the petition has been rather small
(footnote omitted listing the entities filing formal comments in this proceeding), the
filing
of the petition has generated a vast amount of letters to the Commission, likely in
excess of
700,000. The Commission appreciates the time taken by these individuals to make
their feelings known, however, the vast majority of these letters are not directed to a
resolution of the issues raised by the petition, as most are based on an incorrect
understanding of the nature of the relief petitioners seek. Many of them are form
letters that are premised on the mistaken view that the petition was filed by Madalyn
Murray O'Hare [O'Hair], when such was not the case. In addition, the vast majority
of letters urge us to
reject what they understand to be the proposal to ban the broadcast of all religious
programs (including church services) from the air. However, no such proposal was
advanced by the petitioners, nor was it raised by the Commission. Even with these
misunderstandings which have intervened, it is nonetheless clear that those who
have written to the Commission on behalf of the need for religious programming could not
be expected to support that part of the proposal which was premised on a concern about
how religiously affiliated educational organizations operate their stations. One final point
requires mention before proceeding to an examination of the petition itself: Although
various parties sought and were granted extensions of time to respond to the
petition, not all of these parties have filed during the extended period allowed.
Nonetheless, the time for commenting has passed, and the matter is ready for a decision
on whether to proceed withthe issuance of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

[ Paragraphs 3 through 20 generally deal with
ownership issues and are not replicated here. See the PDF version
for the full text. ]

21. The part of this proceeding which has evoked the greatest public response is that
which is concerned with the eligibility of religious organizations for channels which
are
reserved for noncommercial educational use. Petitioners would have us disqualify all
religiously-affiliated organizations and institutions from eligibility to operate on
reserved
channels. In effect, they would have us practice discrimination against a school or
university simply by virtue of the fact that it is owned and operated by a sectarian
organization. As a government agency, the Commission is enjoined by the First
Amendment to observse a stance of neutrality toward religion, acting neither to
promote nor inhibit religion. King's Garden, Inc. v. Federal Communications
Commission, -- U.S. App. D.C. -- , 498 F.2d 51 (1974). Under principles of
neutrality, a religious group, like any other, may become a broadcast licensee, and,
like any
other licensee, a religious group is subject to "enforceable public obligations."
King's Garden, supra.

22. The FM and TV channels which have been reserved for noncommercial
educational use
have been made only to educational institutions and organizations. Under existing
Commission policies, a religious organization which qualifies as educational because
it operates a school or university is eligible to operate a broadcast station on a channel
reserved for noncommercial educational use in the community where it operates the
school.
Keswick Foundation, Inc., 26 F.C.C. 2d 1025 (1970); Pensacola Christian
School, Inc., 41 F.C.C 2d 74 (1973); see also Christ Church Foundation,
FCC 68-732 (1968). In observing the principles of neutrality, we treat religious
organizations and secular organizations alike in determining eligibility for operation
on a reserved channel. Specifically, where an organization's central and primary purpose
is religious it is held to be ineligible for a reserved channel, except as noted above,
although its eligibility to operate on an unreserved channel is not proscribed. Bible
Moravian Church, Inc., 28 F.C.C. 2d 1 (1971).

23. Taken in this context, we view Petitioners' proposals on religious applicants for
reserved FM and TV channels as an impermissible proposition, which would violate
our neutrality just as much as if we were to favor religious applicants over secular ones.
The pleadings indicate Petitioners' personal distaste for most religious programming and
espouse their own views for improving such programming. The Commission, even if were
disposed to, cannot cater to personal views. Nor is it empowered to to enforce or enhance
private rights. See REA Express, Inc. v. CAB, -- U.S. App. D.C. -- , 507 F.2d 42, 46
(1974). In its role of determining the public interest in licensing matters, the
Commission has broad discretion to create and enforce channel allocations policy and rules.
See Footnote 9.Coastal Bend Television Co. v.
FCC, 98 U.S. App. D.C. 251, 234 F. 2d 686, 690 (1956). In addressing a matter of
our discretion, Petitioners have not made a specific and concrete supportive showing
which are called for to void established rules and policy and initiate Commission
rulemaking
proceedings. They have not given us specific instances of abuses, or of cognizable
violations by incumbent licensees. TV Channel Assignment of Newark, New Jersey,
29 RR 2d 1473 (1974). Their general allegations, statements of preferences and general
treaties on constitutional law are not legally sufficient to persuade us to undertake
discretionary action to change the rules or to engage in rule making. Moreover, the law
surrounding administrative rule making does not comprehend any rights in
private parties to compel an
agency to institute such proceedings or to promulgate rules.
Rhode Island Television Corp. v. FCC, 116 U.S. App. D.C. 40, 42,
320 F.2d 762, 764 (1963).

24. Petitioners have suggested that the Commission undertake an inquiry into the
programming practices of stations operated on reserved channels by "sectarian
institutions" or all government supported institutions. We are not
ersuaded that new policies or new
investigations are necessary in this area. The ad hoc enforcement of existing
Commission policies appears to be the preferable course of action. The broadcasters
referred to by Petitioners are subject, just as all other broadcasters are, to the Fairness
Doctrine and the principle that a broadcast station may not be used solely to promote
the personal or partisan objectives of the broadcaster. The Commission will continue to
take appropriate action in specific cases where a prima facie showing can be made
that a broadcast station has violated these principles.

25. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, That the subject petition for rule making IS
DENIED.

Federal
Communications Commission
Vincent J.
Mullins, Secretary

...

Footnote 9: Congress has given the Commission considerable leeway, recognized
by the Courts, to "... workout the difficult First Amendment problems endemic to a
system of licensed communications...." King's Garden, supra at 61.